Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well clearly there is an elite class to whom body autonomy is granted, and an underclass who must follow arbitrary and capricious rules. OP appreciates that celebrities and entertainers are our betters and should not be held to the same standard.


Yes exactly. You are allowed to infect people with a deadly pandemic if you're rich, but if you're poor you have to risk personal medical consequences or lose your remote job.


Reality is that not letting Kyrie play basketball cost New York millions, and firing a firefighter doesn’t. Tons of people lose their jobs when entertainment acts close because the performers aren’t vaccinated. Money talks, does that mean celebrities should not be held to the same standard? Not really, it just means that holding them to the same standard would cost more than adams was willing to pay, whether it was the right thing to do or not.


This is the issue. Politicians claim it about health and saving "grandma", but when the number of dollars get big enough, all that goes out the window.

So apparently getting vaccinated is critically important, but not more important than money.


I don't think this mandate had much to do with body autonomy, but job autonomy, which yes, rich people have quite a bit more of.


An attitude which I've found to be curiously pervasive amongst self-proclaimed egalitarians and socialists.


FWIW, there was a vocal contingent of Marxists on Twitter who saw the mandates for the erosion of worker power and rights that they were, and vigorously opposed them. Richard Wolff even came around eventually, as well as Jimmy Dore after having his own personal run-in with the nasty side effects which are all too common with these vaccines.

Sadly, though, some of the most awful scapegoaters of the unvaccinated were indeed on the "left." Noam Chomsky even said they should be excluded from society completely, and if that meant they couldn't even obtain food, well, that would be their problem.


[flagged]


Tried 5 minutes and it just seemed like the usual "Dore had a different provax position and then changed his mind," and "he doesn't read articles with the pro-vaccine gloss which the commentator would consider 'truthful' ". Some "Dore's position is popular and therefore making him money and therefore a grift" thrown in for good measure. Is there some point in the 50 mins where they actually lay out a case that he faked his vaccine reaction?


He didn’t read the article and point out why he disagreed, he literally misquoted the article (multiple times) to make it seem like it said something it did not.

Even if you say “well, that’s just one article” the 50 minute video demonstrates this is a pattern of Dore’s.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: